OK, here's a transcript of third-base umpire (and crew chief) Randy Marsh's postgame comments regarding the ball David Wright hit down the third-base line. Initially, he called it a foul ball. After Mets third-base coach Manny Acta protested, home-plate umpire Angel Hernandez overuled the call, claiming the ball hit the bag.
For the record, I watched the replay a few times and never saw it hit the base. But that doesn't mean it didn't graze it, even slightly.
Anyway, here's Marsh's explanation:
Q: What was your view of the ball?
A: The ball was curving down the line, and to be honest with you, at the last minute I had the third baseman coming over and the runner down the line and I got distracted for a second. The next thing I knew the ball was outside [the bag] and I thought it was a foul ball. Manny Acta said it hit the corner of the bag, and Willie [Randolph] came out. I looked at Angel and our partners, and I knew. I can’t believe that I would have missed that, but like I said, I was just distracted for a second. I took my eye off it, which is wrong. It was my fault.
Q: What was said during the conference with the other umps?
A: Angel and the guys said it definitely ricocheted off the bag. In that situation, if it’s a correctable call, we do it. Sometimes it might be a situation where you can’t, but in that situation you could.
Q: Why was Carlos Beltran allowed to score from second base on the play?
A: The logic there was that it definitely was past the third baseman, so the batter was going to get a hit and the run was going to score. So we scored the run. It was not definite that the runner on first would get to third, and it was not definite that the batter would get to second. So we left the runner from first on second.
Q: Why did the umps decide to convene?
A: Willie wanted me to get together and get some help.
Q: What, exactly, is the rule?
A: It’s basically common sense and fair play. We’re trying to correct an incorrect call. Put it this way: it was a correctable call. Sometimes you might have a ball hit in the gap and it’s a catch or a no-catch, and it’s impossible to change those. What would you do about placing runners there? That situation is different. This is a correctable situation.
Q: So, really, there is no rule?
A: There’s no rule. It’s the umpires getting together and using logic to correct an umpire’s call.
Q: How often does that happen?
A: It doesn’t happen often. We do have it sometimes fair or foul going around the pole. Several years ago in the New York-Boston series we had two calls that were changed. One was whether it was a home run or not and the other was the A-Rod play at first base. We’re trying to get the call correct. I’m not to proud we had to get together in this situation, but I wanted to do what was right for the game.
Q: Was there off-field help from instant replay, etc.?
A: It’s just the four guys on the field.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
This is a response to a few posts back, so I apologize for my tardiness, but I think Jeff Conine looks like Jeremy Roenick.
And I saw your prediction for the US Open. I'm more interested in your prediction for the I-81 Puck Cup.
even though that call went against the phils in the long run, there were a few calls later on that could have been deemed "make-ups" to go in the Phils favor. (Coste running it out at first) Usually Umps will throw a make up call after a blown call, but they didn;t in this instance. Phils have a shot with their remaining schedule strength, (no teams above .500) but they still have work to do.
Paul: You're right. The play at third base didn't cost the Phillies the game Monday. There were plenty of other opportunities lost. But it did prolong the Mets' big inning, which is what had Charlie Manuel so upset.
JB: Jeremy Roenick? Really? You know I'll never pick against the Binghamton Senators, even if they no longer have everyone's favorite fighting goalie.
Post a Comment